Africa and Australia

In my experience, many white Australians are sadly clueless about Africa [1]. Progressive Australians may know and admire Nelson Mandela (or, perhaps more accurately, know and admire his legacy), others are too often inclined towards racism that is partly due to our history of endemic discrimination, and partly through only noticing negative media reports.

That is unfortunate, as there have been some major advancements and initiatives in Africa - for instance, "The Elders", an initiative of Nelson Mandela which has worldwide impact, and the African  Union (AU), which replaced the earlier Organisation of African Unity, and has been exemplary in diplomatic and humanitarian activity.

But none of that - or almost none of it - makes it into mainstream media here.

I get access to a little more through having subscribed to the news advisory service of the Africa Centre for Strategic Studies (see here, here, and here), which tends to be a bit biased by its security focus, but at least is broad-based, including women and capability building, for instance. (I used to see even more sources when I was doing my news posts on my main blog.) 

Occasionally there can be something good which turns up. As an example, when we were hosting a study team from eastern Africa a few years ago to look at recent developments in wastewater treatment, a media article appeared reporting that some coins which had been found in 1944 had been identified as being from Kilwa, in what is now Tanzania - see here. It now appears that the coins may have come via traders from Makassar, so there was an indirect trading connection centuries ago between Australia's Yolgnu people and Kilwa in Africa.

It was a great comment to end the study trip on a positive note, and is a useful segue to the topic of this post. (And, incidentally, there also indications of trade and contact between China and pre-European settlement Australia - see here, here, here, - and there was an even better article, but I haven't been able to find that.) 

Now, connections between nations are often assessed according to a fairly limited and closely-defined set of "interests", defined in a way that makes arguing for humanitarian aid (let alone intervention) more difficult. Leaving that aside for now, Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT - see here and here), has summarised Australia's interactions with Africa, including what could be termed our humanitarian interactions, quite well at https://dfat.gov.au/geo/africa-middle-east/Pages/africa-region-brief.aspx.

To summarise the DFAT briefing:

• Australia has diplomatic relations with all 54 African nations, and ties with key organisations such as AU, ECOWAS, SADC, the EAC, the IAD, the ICGLR, and COMESA; 
• "economic diplomacy" is "at the core of . . . the Australian Government's approach to international engagement", and includes the "annual Australia-Africa Week", which features the Australia-Africa Universities Network forum, the Africa Down Under Mining Conference and the Africa-Australia Infrastructure + Technology Conference;
• trade with Africa was valued at $10.7 billion in 2017-18, and there were at the time of preparing the briefing "170 ASX-listed companies operating in 35 countries in Africa" (out of around 2,200 listings);
  (for comparison, noting that in 2019 Africa's population was 1.3 billion people, Australia's was 25 million, Africa's total GDP "as of 2019" was reported here as $6,900 billion, Australia's GDP was estimated here as $1,400 billion [I've rounded to the nearest hundred billion];
  "12.5% of Africa's exports are to China, and 4% are to India, which accounts for 5% of China's imports and 8% of India's";
  whereas, for Australia, "East Asia . . . is a top export destination, accounting for about 64% of exports in 2016";
• "development cooperation" occurs in the areas of:
  (a) international aid (estimated to be $125 million in 2018-19, $32 million in 2019-20, $119 million in 2019-10),including an "awards" programme (seems to be similar to a scholarship programme) to "contribute to African leadership and human capacity development in the areas of extractives, agricultural and public policy";
  (b) improved governance of extractive industry;
  (c) agricultural investment, market development, and knowledge sharing (see here and here), with a comment that "Agriculture supports the livelihoods of 80 per cent of Africans and provides employment for about 60 per cent of the economically active population";
  (d) Australia "provides funding to NGOs through the Australian Cooperation Program (ANCP), the Direct Aid Program (DAP) and the Civil Society WASH Fund", as:
  "The Australian aid program values partnerships with civil society organisations including non-government organisations (NGOs). Civil society organisations can be powerful agents for change—as partners in delivering better services for the poorest members of society, and as enablers of social inclusion. They can also advocate for more effective, accountable and transparent governments. Civil society organisations promote community level engagement, build the capacity of civil society more broadly and strengthen people to people links. Australian NGOs have longstanding connections, expertise and experience in Africa. They are working with communities across the African continent. According to the Australian Council for International Development (ACFID),  approximately 30 per cent ($97,957,604.00) of all public donations made by Australians in 2016-17 for development projects overseas went to projects in Africa."
  (e) humanitarian assistance (see here), and a note that "Australia continues to be responsive to Africa’s humanitarian needs", which is good, but I would be interested in knowing (i) how our contribution - as a percentage of our GDP compares to the contribution made by other developed nations, and (ii) how the total aid compares to the total needs of that continent.
  (f) facilitating volunteers (also organised by non-government groups, which I've come across a few times - see here and here);
  (g) contribution to peacekeeping and security ("We are the 11th largest contributor to the UN peacekeeping budget"), together with cooperation and "training to African Defence personnel through a range of courses with a peacekeeping focus" - all of which is good, but I would like to know how we compare on a GDP basis with other developed, Western nations; and
  (h) an Advisory Group on Australia-Africa Relations (AGAAR),established in 2015.

I was particularly pleased to read that last point - and even more pleased to see such a strong set of women and men in it.

The section on improved governance of extractives includes the following: 

Why we give aid

Population growth, rapid urbanisation and industrialisation have fuelled global demand for metals, minerals, oil and gas, creating rapid growth in investment. The extractives and energy sectors drive trade, economic growth and development in the Indo-Pacific region by creating jobs and boosting government revenues. However, investment in developing countries' extractives sectors comes with many challenges. Many resource-rich developing countries perform worse than less-endowed countries on human development indicators.

Australia aims to support developing countries to maximise sustainable benefits from their natural resources, while helping them overcome the challenges. Through engagement in the extractives sector we can assist resource-rich developing countries to strengthen relationships with the private sector, improve governance and revenue management and build technical skills. Continued support in this area is also important for businesses wanting to trade with, and invest in, stable and predictable overseas environments.

How we give aid

We work with multilateral organisations, other government agencies, non-government organisations, universities and the private sector to assist partner governments to maximise the development potential of their extractives sectors. Our activities focus on strengthening the capacity of governments in the Indo-Pacific region and Africa.

Multilateral approaches have proven effective to reduce corruption and improve the transparency, accountability and management of extractives related payments, benefitting both host countries and investors . . .

Now, the first comment I would like to make about that information is that trade is unlikely to be a significant part of the international relationship between these two continents - the volume of trade, while no doubt significant to those involved, and worth respecting and supporting in its own right, is unlikely to reach the point of being a significant national interest for either continent.

To gain a visual understanding of that, look at this map (yes, it is published by the CIA - their World Factbook can be quite useful - and it is surprising what they have published on their blog - e.g., ghosts, UFOs, and diversity & inclusion [I'm fairly sure they published the sketches that came out of some psychic trials as well, but I cannot find those, so maybe not] ).

Nevertheless, as I alluded to above, this trade should be encouraged - not only for its own sake, but also because it has a potential benefit in terms of cultural exchanges. I consider the benefits claimed for international trade in terms of preventing war to be nonsensical, but there can be benefits - particularly for those who find it difficult to set sail on the frigates of imagination that are books (comment adapted from Emily Dickenson's "There is No Frigate Like a Book").

Now, at this point,  I'd like to do a comparison of Australia and what I term central and southern Africa, but is more generally termed "sub-Saharan" Africa, from the point of view of governance. This is based on the assessment at the World Bank's "Worldwide Governance Indicators" (WGI; see http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/ [northern Africa is combined with West Asia [aka West Asia] ), which sounds great, but it is based on perceptions, and thus - although by experts - should possibly be taken with a grain of salt (the high ratings for the USA on crime show just how cautious one has to be, actually).

Nevertheless, rightly or wrongly (usually wrongly - just ask any victim of discrimination), perceptions matter in this world, and the tables below are what the WGI reports for sub-Saharan Africa and Australia. (There are some maps at the end of the post to show the variation within Africa.)

Let's begin with governance. Now, while Australia shows as being in a fairly high quartile compared to sub-Saharan Africa, both are experiencing a decline in government effectiveness, and Australia is showing a decline in control of corruption that sub-Saharan Africa is not experiencing.

Closely related to political matters is "voice and accountability":

Africa shows a consistent ranking on this issue, although lower than ours. That, no doubt, will surprise those who have a negative view of Africa.

Next we have "rule of law":

As with some of the previous indicators, Australia is experiencing a decline, although the quartile ranking is higher than Africa. As significant areas of Africa are experiencing war, civil war, insurrection, or violent extremism, their maintenance of their ranking on this issue is worthy of respect.

So what does all this show?

In my opinion, it shows the legacy of violent colonialism - colonialism that came close to wiping out Australia's indigenous people and culture, had devastating effects on India, China, and elsewhere (which I've written about elsewhere - see here, here, here, and here, for instance), and is well illustrated, in the case of one African nation, by David Van Reybrouck's "Congo - the Epic History of a People" (pub. Fourth Estate [HarperCollins], London, 2015, first pub. 2014, Amsterdam; ISBN 9780007562923; Amazon). That, however, is a topic for a separate dozen or more posts.

The variations show, in my opinion, that Australia should not be too arrogant - sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, has been consistent on "Rule of Law" whereas we, in far more stable conditions, have not. Botswana (see here, here, and here) is in the same quartile as Australia in one category, and just a little lower in another.

There is a tendency to assume that Australia is well-placed to provide capability development in these areas, owing to our higher ranking. I consider, however, that we need to be cautious about exporting our systems that way.

I'm not convinced that there are cultural differences that are of great significance (that tends to be an excuse used by dictators to maintain power), particularly after coming across the cross-cultural support for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights when it was being formulated (see Mary Ann  Glendon's "A World  Made  New" [Random House, 2002, ISBN 978-0679463108] - also see here, which talks about a worldwide survey of cultural attitudes that found universal support for what was included, as well as two of the three key figures being  P.C. Chang from China and Charles Malik from Lebanon), but our systems work well in the context of a nation that has experienced relative internal peace for some time: we have little need of things like hybrid courts (although it could be said we're in transition from a genocidal past and thus maybe could do with some of those . . . ) nor do we have to give as much weight to development needs, management of violent extremism, etc.

Our skills and knowledge should, in my opinion, quite possibly be adapted through a prism like that of the AGAAR (or "The Elders") before we get too cocky about that.

Nevertheless, given the role we claimed so proudly in the British Empire, which extended as far as officially fighting in the second Boer War (and Australian mercenaries being involved in other  conflicts, much as they are in the UAE's current aggressions), as well as the benefits of being actively involved in providing aid (more on that shortly), I consider that there is a strong case for Australia to care about and be involved - respectfully - in seeking to improve the legacy our forebears were so proud of having inflicted (yes, one of my drivers for this is moral).

In terms of this post, the WGI results may tend to give an indication of how well Africa is achieving improvements, which is also a measure of how effective the rest of the world, including Australia, has been at achieving their aims of help.

Despite my caution, it seems to me that governance and related matters are areas where we could provide assistance, so the inclusion of that in our offerings to date is sound.

More generally, there is certainly a need for - and thus an opportunity to - provide human development aid. The diagram below is from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_United_Kingdom&oldid=918544504:

A key part of that will be ensuring peace, as violence of all forms has clearly caused major harm - see the above diagram, for instance, and also here, here, here, here, and here, for instance. Supporting peacekeeping is one way we can help, but I suspect the work of the AU and The Elders, combined with lots of patience and persistence, will be crucial in achieving peace.

That is actually a useful lead in to what I want to consider next: a defence of our involvement in aid generally, and particularly to Africa. 

I suspect the benefits of providing aid are well known and accepted in DFAT, and possibly also in our current and previous Foreign Ministers.

However, the "everyday person" may not, and may resent spending money overseas when people here are in difficulty, and we have such a desperate need to do things like increase Newstart.

My response to those people is - and I'm going to be brief here as (1) I'm running out of steam, and (2) each of these points merits a post on its own - as follows:

1. Spending on preventing war/violence, or preventing war/violence spreading, and ending war/violence ASAP after it has started, does save money. This occurs both directly, through not having to spend money on peacekeepers, and indirectly, through not "having" to spend money on aid to reverse the damage that war does to human development. 
2. War/violence has a way of spreading. This is, at the direct level, through the model described by the "Cure Violence" people, but also because refugees who are accepted may need help and if, as is the case in tight-wad Australia of recent years, that isn't provided, or the harm is exacerbated by the way we slowly process or "manage" asylum seekers and by our iniquitous racism, we may find the effects of the trauma they have experienced coming here. 
3. Cutting ourselves off from giving aid or accepting refugees is not in any way a beneficial response, as it actually weakens our borders - see here. 
4. Being part of the international legal system strengthens the systems that benefit us as well. 
5. I am of the view that practising and strengthening our ability to empathic in one area generally strengthens our ability to be empathic elsewhere - empathy can be taught, just as racism is taught. I'm aware of the problem of compassion fatigue, but teaching politicians to be able to care about helping people they cannot see in another nation enough to provide some help to them is, ultimately, going to help them learn to care about people they choose not to see here in Australia - such as the unemployed and the homeless, who I think neoliberals have a cartoon style caricature of in their heads, rather than a realistic, human depiction. 
6.  Finally, I consider we should contribute to fixing problems that we caused or partly caused - and our notorious and abominable "White Australia" policy contributed to the abhorrent apartheid policy in South Africa, and we were involved in other colonialist nightmares, as touched on above.

That last point is key to me, but I know it won't be for others. 

I'll leave this post at that for now, but hopefully will get the time and energy to edit it into something better down the track.

PS - I hope anything to do with mining is properly considering environmental and slavery issues


Notes

[1] Apart from having worked with Africans (not intending to become Australian citizens) in Australia who are professionals (and having co-written a technical paper with a former colleague in Africa), the simple truth is that many Africans are here as a result of non-humanitarian programmes - including skill-based and family programmes, some going back to Commonwealth schemes in the 60s. For more on this, see here, here (opens as a PDF extract), and here, which puts people of African origin in Australia back as far as the First Fleet. (And possibly earlier, given the gaps in our knowledge of pre-1788 trade.)


Appendix - map presentation of 2018 perceptions: 

Political stability

Government Effectiveness

Regulatory Quality

Control of Corruption

Voice and Accountability

Rule of Law